On 6/16/01 12:30 AM, "Harry Zink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 6/15/01 7:53 PM, Christian M. M. Brady at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I am not sure which you are referring to with Apple's "oeuvre,"
>
> The product that Apple refers to as a progression of the Mac OS - I prefer
> to call it something else. What I was referring to is that Apple's tendency
> to present a moving target to dedicated developers like the MBU place a far
> bigger burden of performance on them (as they are trying to hit a constantly
> moving target), and that this could have been avoided if OS X development
> had been less of an ego driven project, and more of a well-planned,
> technology focused one.
OK. I understand what you mean now and more or less agree with you. The same
is true (perhaps more so) for those who are trying to create drivers for
peripherals.
>> but as I
>> understand it IE5.1 for OSX is essentially just trying to get IE5 for
>> Classic to work in the new OS.
>
> Not sure I understand what you are saying here - IE 5 for Classic works just
> fine (in fact it works magnitudes faster under Classic, than the OS X
> version works). Although if you mean that they are trying to bring OS X IE 5
> to the same level as IE 5 for OS 9, then I'd agree - which is why I
> understand their lack of emphasis on new features. It's already darn
> difficult just to hit that target, right now. I'm sure that in 18 months or
> so, it will have reasonably stopped moving.
Yup, that is what I meant. IE5 for OS 9 is very good, imho, and I believe
that the IE team is just trying to get the X version up to that level before
adding anything new to the equation.
Cb
cbrady @ tulane.edu
--
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the
ability to learn from the experience of others, are also
remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams
To unsubscribe send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/macie-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
